Owens Corning leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. VAT still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, VAT carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Owens Corning's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Owens Corning, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (OC: Russell 1000, VACN.SW: STOXX 600).
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. Owens Corning leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
The clearest structural overlap shows up in capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
VAT Group AG occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Owens Corning still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where OC and VACN.SW each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 26 turns lower.
Capital efficiency also runs the other way, with a 17.2-point ROIC edge acting as a real counterforce.
Valuation gives Owens Corning the clearer edge, even though profitability and the price setup keep the overall picture from looking clean.
Break down the OC vs VACN.SW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how OC and VACN.SW each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.